HMS Queen Elizabeth

[mikal83]

V8 Fettler said:

skeeterm5 said:

One, possibly daft, question for me. Why does she have 2 superstructures? Is one for driving the boat and the other for running the flight deck?

When I look at the other big carriers around the world they all seem to have a single superstructure, what do we know that they don't?

S

For Buccaneers to fly between.

Zoomies

[PRTVR]

Cobnapint said:

Caddyshack said:

I suspect the navy have considered how to protect their £3b ship, even if not advertised.

Well we'd hope so.

San Carlos Bay always springs to mind though.

I am sure they will have a few gpmg's on board, for the cooks.

[vournikas]

V8 Fettler said:

skeeterm5 said:

One, possibly daft, question for me. Why does she have 2 superstructures? Is one for driving the boat and the other for running the flight deck?

When I look at the other big carriers around the world they all seem to have a single superstructure, what do we know that they don't?

S

For Buccaneers to fly between.

True story

[yellowjack]

PRTVR said:

I am sure they will have a few gpmg's on board, for the cooks.

That's a bit excessive. We always found a pistol to the back of the head to be enough for our chefs. Less mess to clean up afterwards...

[CoolHands]

I haven't read the thread so apologies if mentioned, but has anyone else noticed the daily mail's unspoken campaign to give the ship the nickname 'Big Lizzie'? EVERY time they run a story on it they put that as the title.

Really fks me off.

[donutsina911]

Cobnapint said:

Caddyshack said:

I suspect the navy have considered how to protect their £3b ship, even if not advertised.

Well we'd hope so.

San Carlos Bay always springs to mind though.

God knows why? San Carlos Bay is a great example of protecting poorly armed, but capital ships with a layered defence and successfully putting an amphibious force ashore.

[CrutyRammers]

So the numbering has gone R09, R05, R06, R07, and now R08. Is the second QE class going to be R09 again? Weird.

[Cobnapint]

donutsina911 said:

Cobnapint said:

Caddyshack said:

I suspect the navy have considered how to protect their £3b ship, even if not advertised.

Well we'd hope so.

San Carlos Bay always springs to mind though.

God knows why? San Carlos Bay is a great example of protecting poorly armed, but capital ships with a layered defence and successfully putting an amphibious force ashore.

You're kidding right? We lost 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigates to very basic Argentinian jets using free fall bombs.

We would have lost even more if they hadn't dropped them so fricking low.

Fast forward to 2017. Massive target and an enemy with high tech fire and forget anti-ship ballistic and sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away. Hello...?

That's before we talk about the threat from submarines with the latest heavyweight acoustic torpedoes that explode under the hull for maximum effect.

Big Lizzie would be in big trouble in quick time without overwhelming defensive measures in place.

[telecat]

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

[FourWheelDrift]

Nanook said:

Cobnapint said:

You're kidding right? We lost 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigates to very basic Argentinian jets using free fall bombs.

Ardent was a 21, Coventry was a 42, what was the other Frigate?

Antelope.

[ou sont les biscuits]

telecat said:

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

This says not for the latest generation of hypersonic missiles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/britain-...

[mikal83]

Cobnapint said:

donutsina911 said:

Cobnapint said:

Caddyshack said:

I suspect the navy have considered how to protect their £3b ship, even if not advertised.

Well we'd hope so.

San Carlos Bay always springs to mind though.

God knows why? San Carlos Bay is a great example of protecting poorly armed, but capital ships with a layered defence and successfully putting an amphibious force ashore.

You're kidding right? We lost 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigates to very basic Argentinian jets using free fall bombs.

We would have lost even more if they hadn't dropped them so fricking low.

Fast forward to 2017. Massive target and an enemy with high tech fire and forget anti-ship ballistic and sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away. Hello...?

That's before we talk about the threat from submarines with the latest heavyweight acoustic torpedoes that explode under the hull for maximum effect.

Big Lizzie would be in big trouble in quick time without overwhelming defensive measures in place.

Oh dear, the daily heils wet dream, someone else now calling it big lizzie

[RizzoTheRat]

hidetheelephants said:

Explodey missiles are the weapon du jour for threatening carriers with fiery/sinky death. Portable drills not so much.

Wasn't the first submarine equipped with a drill to screw in to the side of ships to attach explosives?

[donutsina911]

Cobnapint said:

You're kidding right? We lost 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigates to very basic Argentinian jets using free fall bombs.

We would have lost even more if they hadn't dropped them so fricking low.

Fast forward to 2017. Massive target and an enemy with high tech fire and forget anti-ship ballistic and sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away. Hello...?

That's before we talk about the threat from submarines with the latest heavyweight acoustic torpedoes that explode under the hull for maximum effect.

Big Lizzie would be in big trouble in quick time without overwhelming defensive measures in place.

No I'm not kidding - We established a beach head thousands of miles from home, under sustained air attack from the best part of 100 jets, in a littoral environment, with a Cold War open water / ASW centric fleet, without losing a capital ship. Escorts / pickets were viewed as expendable in executing the plan - that we lost so few was a mix of good fortune and good people.

There are reasons they had to fly and drop low, it wasn't just a schoolboy fk up on the part of the pilots - do some research.

Fast forward to 2017 and our ability to protect carriers has come on leaps and bounds. The T45 would make mincemeat of anything the Argentinians could throw at us today - none of the threats you reeled off are in their inventory. All the Gucci weaponary you mention is irrelevant to San Carlos in 82 and is irrelevant to San Carlos today - hence my confusion about you using it as an example of why 'big lizzie' could be in 'big trouble'.

[MartG]

Cobnapint said:

... sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away.

And with only helicopter based AEW operating at relatively low altitude unable to spot enemy aircraft until they pop-up to launch the missile, thanks to the curvature of the Earth

[Cobnapint]

donutsina911 said:

No I'm not kidding - We established a beach head thousands of miles from home, under sustained air attack from the best part of 100 jets, in a littoral environment, with a Cold War open water / ASW centric fleet, without losing a capital ship. Escorts / pickets were viewed as expendable in executing the plan - that we lost so few was a mix of good fortune and good people.

There are reasons they had to fly and drop low, it wasn't just a schoolboy fk up on the part of the pilots - do some research.

Fast forward to 2017 and our ability to protect carriers has come on leaps and bounds. The T45 would make mincemeat of anything the Argentinians could throw at us today - none of the threats you reeled off are in their inventory. All the Gucci weaponary you mention is irrelevant to San Carlos in 82 and is irrelevant to San Carlos today - hence my confusion about you using it as an example of why 'big lizzie' could be in 'big trouble'.

100 jets ? Lol. They didn't all come at the same time you know.

And I'm not talking about Argentina being a major threat here, I'm referring to some of the kit the likes of China and Russia have up their sleeves. You'd need a fk site more than a Phalanx at each end to stop all of that getting through.

[Cobnapint]

MartG said:

Cobnapint said:

... sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away.

And with only helicopter based AEW operating at relatively low altitude unable to spot enemy aircraft until they pop-up to launch the missile, thanks to the curvature of the Earth

We'd have the E3-D Sentrys up at 35000 feet but they can't keep up with a Ryanair 737. Easy pickings for somebody 100 miles away with a couple of air to air missiles strapped underneath.

[Shakermaker]

ninja-lewis said:

hidetheelephants said:

Explodey missiles are the weapon du jour for threatening carriers with fiery/sinky death. Portable drills not so much.

Yeah, drills are more suited to targeting frigates and media moguls.

I always liked the Giant Phillishave as a weapon, I thought it was pretty cool. Granted, I was only 13-14 when I first saw it, but it certainly did the job in the "cool" stakes for me. Definitely something that should have been given more development

[MartG]

Cobnapint said:

MartG said:

Cobnapint said:

... sea skimming missiles traveling at hypersonic speeds that can be launched 200 miles away.

And with only helicopter based AEW operating at relatively low altitude unable to spot enemy aircraft until they pop-up to launch the missile, thanks to the curvature of the Earth

We'd have the E3-D Sentrys up at 35000 feet but they can't keep up with a Ryanair 737. Easy pickings for somebody 100 miles away with a couple of air to air missiles strapped underneath.

The E-3s won't be able to follow QE everywhere 24/7 e.g. mid-South Atlantic

[megaphone]

Does anyone know if I could get close to her in a boat? Can I sail into Portsmouth Harbour and go see her? I've done it in the past, usually get warned off when getting within 100 yards of an HMS.